ARRL in Washington

Glen started an interesting subject in this NG about another organization. There has been some good comments and I would like to expand on one that mentioned representation in Washington. Since my election as President of the ARRL, I have spent quite a bit of time in D. C. with Senators and Congressmen as well as the FCC. I never miss a chance to promote amateur radio. The ARRL as a national organization has a full time staff in D. C. which attends many meetings of various groups that might impact amateur radio. In addition to the D. C. staff, we have Steve Mansfield who, when Congress is in session, visits about every other week when time permits.

What would you like to see done in the way of promotion of amateur radio in Washington? What should we increase? What should be decreased?

73

Jim Haynie, W5JBP
President, ARRL # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[K7PIG]

Jim, I would really like to see and hear of rigorious Enforcement by the FCC regarding, CB'ers & Trucker's invading the 10m amateur band.
I've been cussed out and threatened by these foul people who feel they can operate, "Their Radio on any frequency they want". If there will be little enforcement of 10m by the Government, kiss it good-bye as they did with CB.

OK, for all of those who complain that ARRL doesn't care what we think, see Jim's post. I say the way to "fix" the ARRL. if indeed it is broken, is to constructivel engage them in conversation, participate when they need us, and give them our honest input - not to start a competition.

Jim, thanks for stopping by and asking what we think. I would like to see continued improvement in enforcement activities, especially for those that are unlicensed. There is a long thread on here about the 10 meter non-sense, I won't repeat the details since I am sure you can read.

Rules without teeth don't do much for the hobby. While we don't want a police state imposed on the ham bands, a few visible enforcement actions with some nasty penalties for the worst offenders will likely do wonders.

[WB2WIK]

Jim, this one's a given, and I know a lot of work has been done in this area, and more needs to be done:

Federal preemption for reasonable accommodation of amateur antennas currently restricted by deed (CC&Rs)! "We" lost at the FCC level, and definitely need to pursue with Congress. Since it seems that virtually "all" new housing tracts in America have deed restrictions prohibiting reasonable amateur antennas (and indeed, all antennas other than DBS dishes), one day it may indeed become impossible to buy a home where an outdoor antenna is allowed.

73 de Steve, WB2WIK/6

[K9STH]

Jim is the ARRL "official" that has been in contact with me via "private" E-Mail. He is "local" to me in that he lives in the Dallas, / Fort Worth Metroplex.

So far, the dialogue is excellent. I promised Jim that I would not allow any ARRL bashing for the sake of bashing. Suggestions, concerns, etc. are "fair game" so long as they stay on the basic subject. If you disagree, that is fine. Just disagree in an "adult" manner, don't get "personal"! I think that everyone knows how I feel about "personal" attacks.

I think that QRZ.com is "honored" by Jim's coming to these forums for suggestions. Thus, keep it "clean" but make use of this opportunity to tell the ARRL what you think.

Glen, K9STH
one of the QRZ.com moderators

[WA6CAW]

In the April edition of QST, Steve Mansfield, N1MZA, reported that the FCC OK'd the UWB method of transmission. The ARRL requested that UWB transmission be only allowed above 3.1GHz.

This request was made by Paul Rinaldo, ARRL's Technical Relations Manager. He had agreed with the NTIA position.

We need more help, support, teeth, and congressional clout to keep new technology down in the useable bands. There is no reason why UWB transmission cannot operate in the 900MHz band, given the restrictions that are mentioned there, and be affordable for the average amateur operator.

Above 6GHz is really not viable for present day operators.
6GHz 1/4 wave length is mighty small ( 4.6 X10-4).

Steve apparently does the best he can, but needs more help, in my opinion.

That's my 2 cents worth on this subject. Thats probably all it's worth, too.

de WA6CAW
Lou M.

[ke5wj]

Jim,

Thanks for coming to this forum. I am a life member of ARRL and have seen some encouraging signs since your term as president - including the memo of understanding with REACT. I think cooperation instead of arguing is a step in the right direction.

As far as Washington activities, I agree with the other comments on 10m enforcment. Unenforced rules do no good. The FCC has repeatedly said we are supposed to be self-policing - and I agree with that in general. However, there are things that we cannot enforce, since we have no authority. We need the FCC to enforce those things. Bad operating practices and malicious interference has been a target of the FCC recently, but most of it is focused on licensed hams. I don't have any complaints about that, but what about the unlicensed intruders? To me it's like giving speeding tickets only to licensed drivers and letting unlicensed drivers get away free. The interference on 60m SWBC is another example of where the ARRL could provide some "lobbying". Would the ARRL be willing to combine forces with some of the SWLs on issues such as those?

In addition, the antenna restrictions are a major problem that the ARRL has repeatedly reported and is making attempts to combat. I think it needs more effort at a Congressional level. I am not a politician, so I can't tell you how that should be done, though.

The use of new technology is also an issue that should receive more liberal treatment by the ARRL. Of course we must operate within reasonable restrictions - #especially on shared bands. Most hams are willing to do that. But we need to be able to experiment with the latest and greatest technology elsewhere than at SHF. I remember when it was commonly held wisdon that around 1200 baud was the limit for data rates over voice phone lines - until the encoding methods were changed and now the limits are well over 40 times that. We need to be able to bring some of the data communications technology down to more commonly useable frequencies to be able to really experiment and see what we come up with.

Additional clarification on some of the Part 97 rules would also be needed. For example, can we use the internet over ham radio, in general. If not, what parts are not allowed (porno, etc?) and how can we ensure that we are complying with the intent of the rules? Perhaps those only require a statement from the FCC and not new laws or rules - we need to know.

On the international front, the IARP and European Union operating agreements are wonderful. What can be done to encourage similar arrangements with non-participating countries? Is the ARRL talking to the Washington groups that handle international agreements and foriegn relations?

I have other (constructive) concerns about the ARRL, but since you specifically asked for comments on Washington activities, I won't stray from the subject.

Thanks again for listening. I think your (and other ARRL official) presence in forums such as these would go along ways in promoting ham radio and dispelling some misconceptions.

73,

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Jim.........

What concerns me reguarding the ARRL's activity in Washington is the growing simularity to the NRA as far as increased requests for additional funding for "the advancment of Amateur Radio". AS I am sure you know, the additional funds for the NRA went to build one heck of a big ugly building in Va. The last thing I want to see is another such crass missuse of funds. No I am not accusing anyony at the League of anything, just a legitamate concern from a member.

All in all I would have to say the League does a very good job of representing the Amateur community in DC.

I would, however, suggest the League provide the rank and file membership with a more direct means of directing input to those concerned officers at the League.

Tnx 4 askn es 73 de Craig..........KCØGOA http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Good comments. First of all on the intruders on 10 meters. The FCC has fined three here in my area to the tune of $10,000 each. The problem is how do we put this information out so that the "free banders" read about it?
There is not a publication that I know of that they read so the problem will continue until the word gets out. We can put all sorts of stories in the amateur publications, but the free banders do not read amateur magazines. We know there are a number of trucking companies in the mid-west that are using the 10 meter band for local "yard work" and the FCC is aware. Building a case does take time.


CC&R's are indeed a top project for us at the moment. CQ magazine ran a very good editorial in the April issue and also a good story on page 24 about our Washington office. I hope you will read it. I will have more on the CC&r issue as time goes by, but rest assured we are working hard on the project.

A comment from WA6CAW mentions UWB (ultra wide band) and ask why we opposed its operations below 3GHZ (not 6). Several reasons, one is our 1296 and 2.4 bands. Not to mention that UWB below 3GHZ would present a problem for GPS and amateur operations using APRS. The ARRL has two committees at the moment that is working on cutting edge applications. One committee is involved in digital voice, and the other is on software defined radios. They have been quite busy and the DV committee will be presenting a forum at Dayton.

KE5WJ mentions a number of topics and I would again refer him to page 24 of CQ April edition which covers our international operations in detail. And yes, I am willing to work with the SWL'ers. The problem is to identify the larger groups. It is not practical to work with 50 or 100 SWL clubs on an individual basis.

Last it was mentioned contacting the officers of the League. All of our names, addresses, e-mail and my phone number is listed on page nine of QST. If that does not work, go to www.arrl.org and in the box on the left type in ARRL Officers. Understand this: The officers do not set policy. This is done by the board of directors which there are 15 and are also listed in QST and the League web site.

Thanks,

Jim Haynie, W5JBP
President, ARRL #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n4sl]

Jim says we need to somehow notify the CB-illegals of FCC enforcement as a deterrent but these folks don't read amateur magazines.

I think most of the truckers and freebanders read biker magazines like 'Easy Rider' - they are a sorta counter-culture group. Somehow sleezy tatooed women, loud greasy motorcyles and illegal radios go together in their world, and a lot of truckers got their wander-lust start as bikers.

No, I'm not joking and yes I like the tatooed women.

73, Steve N4SL (ARRL member)

N4SL.........

I think you have been reading too many of the wrong magazines yourself.

73 de Craig..........KCØGOA

Retired trucker and ARRL Member

[K7PIG]

Jim, here you go:
WBAP, 820, AM Radio out of Texas for the:
Midnight Trucking Radio Network
Monday thru Sunday: 12http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0AM - 5http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0AM
Website: http://www.wbap.com/

Midnight Trucking Radio Network website:
http://www,wbap.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.midnighttrucking.com/

ADVERTISE on this radio station, put out a stern warning to trucker's about their radio's. The FCC could do the same. The word will get out.

There are 2 other AM stations within this network, 1440 AM in the Washington State and have forgotten the third. The word will get out and I'll bet with nasty comments from those trucker's that seem to be above the law, live on the broadcast, they call in.

[ke5wj]

Thanks for the reply, Jim. I appreciate all of your comments and suggestions. I'll try to get the copy of CQ - I'm not a subscriber. Are the international operations described in QST or on the ARRL web site? If so, I haven't seen them, but that may be my fault.

As far as working with 50 or 100 SWL groups, that is definitely not a problem! There aren't that many anymore! As far as I know within the US there are only a handfull of clubs on a regional or national level and all are members of ANARC - Association of North American Radio Clubs.

If you are serious about getting input and helping then just give the word and you'll be surprised how fast word gets out. If a request for info is put out, there would be responses within the month - and most likely within the week. There has already been some DF work, etc. done by the SWL community. There are some active hams in most of those groups and I'd be surprised if at least some aren't ARRL members, too. As I'm sure you are aware, many hams started out as SWL's and many still enjoy it - me included.

I hope you are serious and I look forward to hearing from you or someone else on the subject. Actually, an offer of help in Washington from the ARRL would come as a total shock. My perception is that no one, especially SWL's, expects the ARRL to cooperate with anyone outside the ARRL. I for one would like to see that change.

[w1nzz]

As a resident of Southern California, my major request is for more timely enforcement. I know we went thru a 10 year period with a total hands-off approach, and now some action is being taken. But why?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif? does it 1,2, or even 5 years for open cases to reach some resolution? First licensed back in the 50's, and never thought that ham radio could ever deteriorate to this point! 2M repeaters out here, one particular case on 75 downeast in Maine, all cases in point